Blood Type Diet - Peter d'Adamo

good points charles

the list seems to show alot of inconsistencies and I canot find any logical or scientific explanation why would for example lemon and lime be considered as neutral for certan blood type while oranges and tangerines should be avoided.
Also why of all the fish only baraccuda and octopus should be avoided while all other sea food is recomended
 
Charles said:
What do you mean with rejecting the science of the idea? What science?
Well, my first thought would be - D'Adamo is not going to tell you, beause this is a money making idea and he's probably patented it. But then, I thought he'd have to have some 'science' behind it in order to come to these conclusions in the first place. The book goes into a little more detail about what he actually did - and I'm not going to type all that out!

Also if he'd just made it all up, then the diet wouldn't work and why would the Cs give it the 'tick of approval' if there wasn't anything to it? Incedentally they did say that it needed to be 'tweeked' for the Rh factor.

980822 - Q: Anything else on that to make some fine-tuning adjustments?
A: You should investigate blood type diet differentials, there is validity there.

981031 - Q: (A) I want to ask about this blood type diet. My opinion is that this is a silly book and it has nothing to do with reality... (L) It's working for F****... (A) Well, what about this book? I have the idea that the author just invented stuff out of his head. Am I right?
A: Not really, but the Rh factor hones it in better.
Q: (L) Can you tell us how the Rh factor will affect it to refine what this guy says?
A: Exactly.
Q: (L) We did a little muscle testing to find out what type Ark is and it said A, but also responded to B, so my guess is he is AB. (A) But does it matter what type I am?
A: Yes, and find out.
Q: (L) Okay, I will send for the test. (A) Even if I am AB, I will just eat what I want to! (L) He knows what he likes to eat and what makes him feel better, and that includes chocolate and Oreo cookies...
:D Maybe you should ask Ark if he has anything further to add on any 'science' to be found here, since it was a while back that this conversation took place.
 
Vulcan59 said:
Session 981031 said:
Q: (A) I want to ask about this blood type diet. My opinion is that this is a silly book and it has nothing to do with reality... (L) It's working for F****... (A) Well, what about this book? I have the idea that the author just invented stuff out of his head. Am I right?
A: Not really, but the Rh factor hones it in better.
As I mentioned, it seems to work for some people and not for others. I suggest to experiment and then refine the list to suit your needs. Note, from the above quote, this blood type food is not really all rubbish and I have yet to find information on how or in what way the RH factor plays apart.
I was doing some research on blood rh factor today and stumbled upon this site (http:/)/www.biotype.net/diets/rhnegative.htm
The Biotype Research shows that blood type Rh-negative has more IgE allergies than Rh-positive. In fact, Rh-neg has the highest rate of immediate allergies of all blood types. The graph at right is an example. This biotype especially reacts to nuts and beans, but also to eggs, some meats, gluten grains and nightshades, as shown below. Their worst allergen is peanuts, a native American food. IgE Scores of 500-750 are mild, 750-1000 are moderate, and 1000-1250 denote strong allergies. Blood type Rh-negative also displays delayed allergies, including: strong IgG allergens, and some T-cell allergens.
I am bloodtype O neg. and I have not noticed any reaction to the listed foods (but maybe I am an exception.)
 
I am wondering why this book and diet is brought up so much on this site...it crops up in many threads...I haven't read it and I'm not sure I will. I have looked at the suggested diet for type O and the website and it just comes across to me as another fad. Can anyone tell me where or if there is actual scientific evidence of this diet really working?
I also read in another thread, I forget where exactly it was, but I remember that Anart wrote saying that type O does not do well without animal protein. Being type O and having been vegetarian for over 20 years, and a fit and healthy person who has not been ill for years, I find this unlikely.
Also, is anyone here familiar with "The China Study"? I will write a review of this in the books section shortly. It claims to be the most comprehensive study of diet, an ongoing project that began in 1983, with over 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.
The main findings were that people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. "Even relatively small intakes of animal-based foods were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based food were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease." (Campbell, 2006).
I think it is worth considering the results of these studies and to really question the role of protein in diet. And to ask, what really is the evidence....what evidence is there that we need or do not need certain types of protein? Is there evidence that certain types may damage humans?
Campbell discusses the myths of protein as follows:
Campbell said:
The proteins of other animals are very similar to our proteins because they mostly have the right amounts of each of the needed amino acids. These proteins can be used very efficiently and therefore are called "high quality". Among animal foods, the proteins of milk and eggs represent the best amino acid matches for our proteins, and thus are considered the highest quality. While the "lower quality" plant proteins may be lacking in one or more of the essential amino acids, as a group they do contain all of them.
The concept of quality really means efficiency with which food proteins are used to promote growth. This would be well and good if the greatest efficiency equalled the greatest health, but it doesn't, and that's why the terms efficiency and quality are misleading. In fact, to give you a taste of what's to come, there is a mountain of compelling research showing that "low-quality" plant protein, which allows for slow but steady synthesis of new proteins, is the healthiest type of protein. Slow but steady wins the race. The quality of protein found in a specific food is determined by seeing how fast animals would grow while consuming it. Some foods, namely those from animals, emerge with a very high protein efficiency ratio and value.
The focus on efficiency of body growth, as if it were good health, encourages consumption of protein with the highest "quality". As any marketer will tell you, a product that is defined as being high quality instantly earns the trust of consumers. For well over 100 years, we have been captive to this misleading language and have oftentimes made the unfortunate leap to thinking that more quality equals more health.
The basis for this concept of protein quality was not well known among the public, but its impact was - and still is - highly significant. People, for example, who choose to consume a plant-based diet will often ask, even today, "Where do I get my protein?", as if plants don't have protein. Even if it is known that plants have protein, there is still the concern about its perceived poor quality. This has led people to believe that they must meticulously combine proteins from different plant sources during each meal so that they can mutually compensate for each other's amino acid deficits. However, this is overstating the case. We now know that through enormously complex metabolic systems, the human body can derive all the essential amino acids from the natural variety of plant proteins that we encounter every day. It doesn't require eating higher quantities of plant protein or meticulously planning every meal.

The book is heavily referenced (over 750), mostly from other scientific publications. Not that that means it is without error, but it does indicate that research has gone into it, unlike many fad diet books out there.

Some key findings are that Casein (which makes up 87% of milk protein) consistently and strongly promoted all stages of cancer. Plant proteins (including wheat and soy) did not promote cancer, even at high levels.

Of course, the type of vegetarian diet you eat is also relevant. I don't think it is necessarily any better health-wise if you eat a highly processed vegetarian diet.
 
I have not read many studies...but here is my experience:

I am type "O". Many years ago, I tried a vegetarian diet. Many of my friends were vegetarians and reported having more energy and health. There were also political and spiritual concerns over eating meat. I tried the vegetarian diet for many months and even studied nutrition to make sure I got a balance of nutrients (including protein). I prepared food using fresh ingredients (I love to cook from "scratch").

My results were that I became more lethargic, felt weaker and got sick (colds and flu) more often. When I began to eat meat again, my energy returned, I felt stronger, and I rarely get a cold or the flu. Now, it could have been coincidental and the changes in my energy, strength, and wellness may have been because of something else...I did try again some time later (can't remember if months or a year or so later), with the same results.

What I learned is that I seem to need some meat in my diet. For a long time, I could not figure it out. Why did all my vegetarian friends have a different reaction than I? When I found this book on blood types, it made some sense to me. Although, I am not convinced that the author has all the answers, I think he may be on the right track...
 
Inti said:
I am wondering why this book and diet is brought up so much on this site...it crops up in many threads...I haven't read it and I'm not sure I will.

Perhaps if you read it, you would understand. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it is very, very helpful in my (and others) personal experience. The fact that you've not even taken the time to read it, yet you are refuting it is rather telling. fwiw.
 
anart said:
The fact that you've not even taken the time to read it, yet you are refuting it is rather telling. fwiw.

Telling of what?
The reason I haven't read it is because I am not sure it is worth it. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong or does not give useful information, and, as you, Anart, and Fireshadow say, it does seem to work for some people. I am just asking what evidence it bases its theories on. I also question advising someone to try eating animal proteins, when there is a lot of evidence that it does not promote good health. And I'm curious as to why this book, more than other diet books, is brought up again and again on this site.
 
Inti said:
anart said:
The fact that you've not even taken the time to read it, yet you are refuting it is rather telling. fwiw.

Telling of what?
The reason I haven't read it is because I am not sure it is worth it. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong or does not give useful information, and, as you, Anart, and Fireshadow say, it does seem to work for some people. I am just asking what evidence it bases its theories on. I also question advising someone to try eating animal proteins, when there is a lot of evidence that it does not promote good health. And I'm curious as to why this book, more than other diet books, is brought up again and again on this site.

Just few words from my angle. Why don't you make your own little experiment and fallow recommended blood type diet. But make some blood tests first or simple darkfield analysis just to have reference point and after few months do blood test again. Maybe you will find some changes? I know I did.
 
Inti said:
I am wondering why this book and diet is brought up so much on this site...it crops up in many threads...

Quite possibly because many of us have tried it and find that it has some validity. It's not perfect, but there is definitely something to it.

Also, in case you didn't notice, the forum is called "cassiopaea" and exists because of the Cassiopaean Experiment. Have you read The Wave and Adventures With Cassiopaea and the other materials related to this forum? If you are familiar with the Cs, you might find this article helpful in that respect: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/diet.htm

Inti said:
I haven't read it and I'm not sure I will. I have looked at the suggested diet for type O and the website and it just comes across to me as another fad.

Well, that's your opinion based on no knowledge. We have a thread about opinions: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925.0

inti said:
Can anyone tell me where or if there is actual scientific evidence of this diet really working?

Read the book, that's where you will find the scientific basis and evidence recounted. Of course, mainstream science - the science supported by the PTB, including Big Pharma, tries to refute it, but more and more doctors who are breaking free of Big Pharma controls are coming forward to say that there is definitely something wrong with the way modern medicine looks at food. As it often is in the PTB controlled world of medicine, ten thousand people who benefit from something that the PTB don't want you to do will not make one whit of difference in the slanted scientific studies they will publish to promote the mainstream view. Another example of this is the fact that it is clear that the "bailout" is not to help the masses, but is rather designed to keep the "system" afloat.

inti said:
I also read in another thread, I forget where exactly it was, but I remember that Anart wrote saying that type O does not do well without animal protein. Being type O and having been vegetarian for over 20 years, and a fit and healthy person who has not been ill for years, I find this unlikely.

What type of vegetarian? What, exactly, do you eat? The devil is often in the details. Also, human beings are individual and unique and each person has to find exactly what works for them with some care and attention. Finally, what is your standard of "healthy." I've never known a vegan who was really healthy even though they claimed they were. They didn't have stamina and couldn't do the same things that meat eaters can do.

inti said:
Also, is anyone here familiar with "The China Study"?

Yes, it's a highly flawed piece of work.

inti said:
I will write a review of this in the books section shortly.

Be our guest.

inti said:
It claims to be the most comprehensive study of diet, an ongoing project that began in 1983, with over 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease.

See above. It is highly flawed.

Read: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html and http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html and

As one commentator wrote:

The China Study is a perfect example of reducing thing to stats without the context of human evolution or culture. Give me an ethnography over this kind of thing any day. Plenty of cultures have low rates of "diseases of civilization" without eating a vegan diet. It's pretty clear that people can eat animal products without getting diabetes/heart disease from studies of other populations like the Inuit.

See also: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml

and: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine

and: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

inti said:
Some key findings are that Casein (which makes up 87% of milk protein) consistently and strongly promoted all stages of cancer. Plant proteins (including wheat and soy) did not promote cancer, even at high levels.

Here, we will agree with Campbell. Cow's milk is evil!

Finding one's way through the morass of dietary confusion is tricky. There are agendas on every side. Very early on I came across the fact that victims of alleged alien abductions were being steered toward vegetarianism. Obviously abductions are just that - a violation of free will, an ABDUCTION. So why were gray aliens telling people to become vegetarians???

The same government that brings us trans-fats, xenoestrogens in nearly everything that surrounds us, that puts hormones and antibiotics in meat on the hoof, which destroys our homone systems, that brings u war without end, Enron and now the economic collapse, says that "smoking kills."

YOU figure it out.
 
I also read in another thread, I forget where exactly it was, but I remember that Anart wrote saying that type O does not do well without animal protein. Being type O and having been vegetarian for over 20 years, and a fit and healthy person who has not been ill for years, I find this unlikely.
Also, is anyone here familiar with "The China Study"?

Hello Inti. :) Based in part on books like the China Study, and an interest in reducing chances of developing diabetes and heart disease, I went on a vegetarian diet.
(I'm also a type O) In a few weeks I was seriously ill, and in and out of the ER for severe abdominal pain in the upper right side of my chest. I do not have a gallbladder, and a few tests later the docs said they didn't know for sure, but my liver was 'congested'. The gastroenterologist discussed cutting the valve or putting a stent into the common bile duct, but said the procedure had too high a risk of developing all the conditions I went on the vegetarian diet to get rid of in the first place.

Long story short, I *have to* eat meat in order to function. I can never return to a vegetarian diet without serious health risks. Subsequent reading and investigation of the blood type diet has gone a long way in helping me recover from this painful condition. I eat the best lean protein I can find, and while it costs a lot more, my Hubby and I consider it worth it in the long run. :)

If you haven't checked her out, I can also suggest reading Sherry Rogers books on diet and using food and corrective supplements. Her work has been a life saver for many people suffering from digestive and diet related illness.
 
Thankyou very much for the replies, I appreciate it because I am interested in the area of food and nutrition and seek to make myself more aware about it.

regulator said:
Why don't you make your own little experiment and fallow recommended blood type diet. But make some blood tests first or simple darkfield analysis just to have reference point and after few months do blood test again. Maybe you will find some changes? I know I did.

I would like to try the experiment on myself, but doing extensive blood tests is quite expensive and I suppose because I feel in good health, I don't feel a great personal need to. I did go through a year of eating fish when I lived in the wild and I did not notice any difference.

Laura said:
Also, in case you didn't notice, the forum is called "cassiopaea" and exists because of the Cassiopaean Experiment. Have you read The Wave and Adventures With Cassiopaea and the other materials related to this forum?

I am on the 3rd Wave book and have made my way through several of the other books recommended on this forum -eg, your book "The Secret History of the World", Martha Stout, Castaneda, Ouspensky and Gurdjieff. I have read a lot on this forum and am interested in learning about the many subjects raised here. I did realise the forum exists because of the Cassiopaean experiment.

Laura said:
Well, that's your opinion based on no knowledge.
True, but I am also going on my own experience which is that I feel healthy as type O without meat and have done for many years.

Laura said:
What type of vegetarian? What, exactly, do you eat? The devil is often in the details.
I agree that the devil is in the details. I think many vegetarian and vegan diets can be very unhealthy, just as some meat diets can be very unhealthy. I think it depends a lot on what you eat and how you eat it. I also agree that it depends on the individual and I think there are many other factors involved: soil quality, air quality, water quality, other toxins ingested, vaccines, attitude, physical activity, stress levels and probably a myriad of other factors I can't think of right now.
I eat a largely raw vegetarian diet. Huge amounts of green leafy vegetables, some root vegetables, only sprouted legumes (not cooked ones), all fruits, nuts & seeds, all bee produce. Now and again some goat's cheese (probably not good, but I like the taste of it!). I don't like any starches like pasta, rice or bread and so only eat them if someone cooks them for me. I also don't like milk or yoghurt.

I think vegans are often very unhealthy because they eat such large quantities of refined (processed) carbohydrates, which I think leads to the grey pallor and lack of energy. I speak from experience on this as this is precisely how I ate for 4 years as a vegan and I was, admittedly, very unhealthy and lost a huge amount of weight and constantly felt exhausted and full of cravings.

When I say I feel healthy, I mean that I have a good amount of energy and have not been ill for years. For many of these years, my work was very physically demanding (walking over 10km a day with equipment and climbing) and I seemed to be able to cope better than most.

Thankyou for the links to reports on the China Study, Laura. I have read the "What's wrong with the China study" one and it makes some very good points and raises some important issues. I think it is often important to examine methodology with scientific papers, and, of course, analysis of the methodology is not what one often gets to see in a book.

Laura said:
Finding one's way through the morass of dietary confusion is tricky
Certainly is. There is a vast amount of disinformation out there. That is why I think it is important to discuss and raise questions regarding food, nutrition and health. Maybe I will read the blood type diet book when I have time, as then I can inform myself about it, though it is not a priority given the scale of my book piles to get through at the moment.

Laura said:
Very early on I came across the fact that victims of alleged alien abductions were being steered toward vegetarianism. Obviously abductions are just that - a violation of free will, an ABDUCTION. So why were gray aliens telling people to become vegetarians???

I don't know anything about this, sorry. Could you explain why being vegetarian would be more appealing to the greys?

Laura said:
The same government that brings us trans-fats, xenoestrogens in nearly everything that surrounds us, that puts hormones and antibiotics in meat on the hoof, which destroys our homone systems, that brings u war without end, Enron and now the economic collapse, says that "smoking kills."

Yeah...it gets more and more difficult to eat anything remotely natural. As for the smoking thing, again I think this depends on what you smoke...surely all that toxin laced tobacco can't be that great? I imagine natural tobacco smoked now and then to be a different thing entirely to puffing your way through 60 marlboro a day.

Talking of hormones in food, I'd also really appreciate information on Codex Alimentarius, if anyone has any. I have read the thread here on the forum. I also found the Rath foundation to put out the most information. However, some of the claims as regards Codex I have not been able to verify. For example, I have heard that it is the plan to irradiate all fruit and vegetables and ban labelling of growth hormones in meat. However, I cannot find anything to back up these claims. If anyone has found this, please let me know.

Laura said:
YOU figure it out
I'll try but it is a minefield out there!

One other factor that I would like to bring up as it may (or may not) be relevant to some people is that a change in diet can lead to a detoxification process, which can be more or less severe. I wonder if some people may confuse detoxification symptoms for adverse effects due to diet change. I am no expert but I have read that detoxing too fast can overload the organs with long-stored toxins and the body sometimes cannot clean them out fast enough.

Hi Gimpy :) Glad to hear that your changed diet has increased your health and wellbeing and thanks for the info.
 
Laura said:
Here, we will agree with Campbell. Cow's milk is evil!

I'm starting to believe that this is untrue as a general statement. Think of the difference between the chemical laden manufactured cigarettes vs. the rolled pure tobacco cigarettes - one causes disease and the other promotes health. And perhaps that is exactly what has happened to milk - it has been manipulated into something that causes ill health when in reality, it promotes good health.

Please access this website and read the info there, which is quite extensive and why I'm not posting excerpts here: _http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/index.html
I will cite this one sentence:
Government officials and medical professionals, swayed by corporate dollars and lies, have effectively taken this valuable, healing food from the mouths of the people.
Sound familiar?

There is also A Campaign for Real Milk, a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation, which is referenced by the previous site: _http://www.westonaprice.org/

What I've learned from the raw milk site is the critical importance of cows eating grass instead of grain. This is also true for beef destined to be eaten, as dramatically revealed in the book, Alive and Well, available online: _http://www.whale.to/m/binzel2.html

I'm not going to say anymore regarding either site or the book. READ THIS STUFF - it's beyond eye opening! :shock:
 
Sorry, but raw milk has exactly the same very negative effect on me that processed milk has. Same with natural cheeses vs processed. Some people can tolerate it, I just don't think that humans were designed to drink the milk of a creature that is supposed to grow to a thousand pounds in one year. If humans need supplemental milk, they should try goat's milk or sheep's milk. None of my children can tolerate milk either.
 
Laura said:
Sorry, but raw milk has exactly the same very negative effect on me that processed milk has. Same with natural cheeses vs processed. Some people can tolerate it, I just don't think that humans were designed to drink the milk of a creature that is supposed to grow to a thousand pounds in one year. If humans need supplemental milk, they should try goat's milk or sheep's milk. None of my children can tolerate milk either.

I agree 100% here - I can't have it in any form. I've come to strongly think that humans should not ingest Cow's milk at all - at any age - for any reason. osit.
 
Laura said:
Sorry, but raw milk has exactly the same very negative effect on me that processed milk has. Same with natural cheeses vs processed. Some people can tolerate it, I just don't think that humans were designed to drink the milk of a creature that is supposed to grow to a thousand pounds in one year.

True, just as not everyone can smoke tobacco, not everyone can drink milk, raw or otherwise.

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/Raw_Milk_FAQ.html said:
Q: I'm lactose intolerant. Can I drink raw milk?

A: Chances are good that you may, even if you're of African or Asian descent, assuming you can find a reliable source near your home. Unheated milk contains its full complement of enzymes and lactase-producing bacteria needed by our bodies to break down and assimilate the milk sugar lactose. These helpful bacteria are killed in the pasteurization/homogenization process. Fermented milk products, such as yogurt and kefir, naturally lower in lactose due to the actions of various Lactobacillus and other lactic acid-producing bacteria, may be better tolerated by some.

Q: What if I'm allergic to milk?

A: While a valuable food, dairy products, raw or otherwise, are not everyone's cup of tea. Milk allergies are very real and serious threats today- just ask any pediatrician. Barring the small percentage of folks allergic to all forms of the milk protein casein, you might be able to tolerate raw milk with it's self-digesting food enzymes intact. Again, fermented dairy products may be better tolerated by some individuals.

Q: Can anybody drink raw milk?

A: Yes, with a nod to those folks whom it just doesn't suit, but there are a few important exceptions. For infants, there's absolutely no substitute for mother's milk, however, should that be unavailable for some unfortunate reason, baby formula with raw milk as a base can fill in nicely. Individuals with a compromised immune system, whether due to illness, medication, chemo-therapy or genetic malfunction, may be able to drink it, but should consult with a raw milk-friendly medical professional before attempting it.

Q: Doesn't raw milk contain hormones?

A: Yes, it has trace amounts of naturally occurring hormones and growth factors- key bioactive ingredients that make it such a valuable, healing food. Raw milk, especially that from cows fed organic green grass, isn't just a great tasting food, it's powerful medicine. That's likely one of the major reasons it's unavailable in so many states. After all, we can't have people healing themselves, now can we?

Q: What about raw skim milk?

A: Raw milk from grass-fed cows is a complete and balanced food. You could literally live on it and nothing else for the rest of your life. Not so with skim milk. By removing important fats and fat-soluble vitamins in the skimming process, this once excellent food actually becomes a burden on the body, causing the liver to give up stored nutrients in its digestion. The loss of CLA, pathogen-busting medium-chain triglycerides and vitamin A alone constitutes an unforgivable crime against nature's perfect food. Rather than avoiding fat, take the time to learn why its presence is essential to your health (see fat link above). My advice? Skip the skim. Your body will thank you.

Q: Can raw milk be used in cooking?

A: Ideally, no. The whole idea behind not pasteurizing milk straight from the cow is to preserve the delicate bioactive factors it contains. When heated to cooking temperatures or poured into coffee or tea close to the boiling point, you're effectively pasteurizing it and thus depriving yourself of the beneficial enzymes, immunoglobulins and other factors it contains, as well as increasing its allergenicity. Hi-speed blending can physically damage raw milk as well, so if you like smoothies, puree the other ingredients first, then stir in the raw milk.

In the following clip, Dr. William Campbell Douglass sheds more light on how to inform yourself about raw milk and nutrition: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhnvvo0Tk0&feature=player_embedded

With the above clip in mind, please note this quote from this thread:
Ms. Fallon's lifelong interest in the subject of nutrition began in the early 1970s when she read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price. Called the “Charles Darwin of Nutrition,” Price traveled the world over studying healthy primitive populations and their diets. The unforgettable photographs contained in his book document the beautiful facial structure and superb physiques of isolated groups consuming only whole, natural foods.

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/milk_history.html said:
People have been drinking raw milk from animals for thousands of years. [...] Whether it's from cows, goats, sheep, camels, yak, water buffalo, horses, donkeys or even reindeer, unheated, unprocessed milk has been a safe, reliable food source for a good, long time.

Even in the tropics, and centuries before refrigeration had been invented, raw milk was an important food source for many cultures. By exploiting the preservative benefits of fermentation, primitive peoples were able to take a great food and make it even better.

Having access to a nutrient-laden food from their animals gave many cultures a distinct advantage over their hunter-gatherer contemporaries (1).

Considering raw milk's role throughout history, it's simple to see that it's not a deadly food. If it were, all those dairy-loving primitive cultures would have died out long ago, leaving their vegetarian cousins to mind the store. At the very least, people would have dropped it from their diets entirely.

Closer to home, our early American ancestors lived in a farm-based economy. As the Industrial Revolution reached our shores, the cities swelled with job seekers lured from their farms by the factories and mills. By 1810, there were dozens of water-powered operations lining the rivers of southern New England, all staffed by thirsty workers.

With raw milk and whiskey being the main beverages of choice (hopefully not mixed!), demand for both grew along with the cities. When the War of 1812 broke out, the supply of distilled spirits from Europe essentially dried up. Although the conflict only lasted about two years, it's impact on our country was substantial, and strangely enough for milk, particularly nasty.

To meet the soaring demand for spirits, distilleries soon sprang up in most major cities. In one of the most bizarre twists of entrepreneurial insight, some brilliant soul thought it would be fun (and profitable) to confine cows adjacent to the distillery and feed them with the hot, reeking swill left over from the spirit-making process (3).

As you might guess, the effects of distillery dairy milk were abominable, and for many of those drinking it, amounted to a virtual death sentence. Confined to filthy, manure-filled pens, the unfortunate cows gave a pale, bluish milk so poor in quality, it couldn't even be used for making butter or cheese. Add sick workers with dirty hands, diseased animals and any number of contaminants in unsanitary milk pails and you had a recipe for disaster.

Lacking it's usual ability to protect itself, and with a basic understanding of germs or microbes decades away, the easily contaminated "pseudo-milk" was fed to babies by their unwitting mothers. In New York City during 1870 alone, infant mortality rocketed to around 20% and stayed there for many more years (4).

The Distillery Dairy page mentioned above contains links to articles in the New York Times archives which enable you to 'read all about it' in the language of the era.

The situation languished for years until two men stepped up to the plate from different directions, united by a disaster common in the day- the death of a child.

In 1889, two years before the death of his son from contaminated milk, Newark, New Jersey doctor Henry Coit, MD urged the creation of a Medical Milk Commission to oversee or "certify" production of milk for cleanliness, finally getting one formed in 1893 (5).

By joining with select dairy experts, Coit (above, treating babies in New Jersey) and his team of physicians (unpaid for this work, by the way) were able to enlist dairy farmers willing to meet their strict standards of hygiene in the production of clean, certified milk.

After years of tireless effort, raw, unpasteurized milk was again safe and available for public consumption, but it cost up to four times the price of uncertified milk.

New York philanthropist Nathan Straus, who lost a child to milk contaminated with diphtheria, felt differently. He believed the only safe milk was that which had been pasteurized.

Straus (at right) made a fortune as co-owner of Macy's department stores and spent decades promoting pasteurization across America and Europe. Using his considerable finances, he set up and subsidized the first of many "milk depots" in New York City to provide low-cost pasteurized milk (6).

While infant mortality did fall dramatically, other technological advances, such as chlorination of water supplies and reduction of previously ever-present horse manure (through the arrival of the automobile) occurred in the same time period making it difficult to say which change was most responsible.

Pasteurized and certified milks managed to peacefully co-exist for a time, but by the mid-1940's, the truce had become decidedly uneasy. In 1944. a concerted media smear campaign was launched with a series of completely bogus magazine articles designed to spark fear at the very thought of consuming raw milk (7).

Government officials and medical professionals, swayed by corporate dollars and lies, have effectively taken this valuable, healing food from the mouths of the people. Only in recent years has the consumer backlash against valueless processed foods grown to the point where access to clean, raw milk is once again being considered a dietary right.

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_safety.html said:
No website about raw milk would be complete without a discussion of bacteria, both good and bad. And that's a key point. Not all bacteria are bad characters(1). (At right, Lactobacillus brevis, one of the good guys...)

The news is full of Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks these days. No food seems to be immune. What is generally swept under the rug in discussions about raw milk, however, is the protection given by lactic acid-producing bacteria normally present.

In what microbiologists call the principal of Competitive Exclusion, non-pathogenic bacteria like, say, Lactococcus lactis, can actually limit or kill bad bugs like Listeria monocytogenes, responsible for hundreds of illnesses yearly
(2).

It seems lactic acid is really hard on the germs that can make us sick if their numbers get too high. Nice system!

But make no mistake, ANY food can be contaminated (3). It usually boils down to how it was produced, handled and packaged. (Certainly, low quality raw milk in the mid-1800's, contaminated with tuberculosis bacilli, had its unwanted share of the limelight). Lots of variation exists in each of these areas. And besides, not many foods have built-in lactic acid producers policing the neighborhood.

Take the pasteurization process, for instance. While it certainly destroys bacteria, good and bad (and thus reduces the potential for infection), it's far from flawless (4).

Pasteurized milk still sickens people, and in far greater numbers than the more heavily regulated raw product (5). The real question ought to be, how are pathogens getting anywhere near cows to begin with.

The Swedes have practically eliminated Salmonella from their herds. At one dairy feeding organic grass to their cows, the very manure is pathogen-free (6)!

Raw milk from cows fed diets heavy in grain (7), soybeans (8) and cottonseed meal (9), etc., apparently cannot effectively protect itself from pathogenic infection. Everyone agrees, it must be pasteurized.

Heating milk renders it less capable of defense against subsequent infection (10). With the destruction of its tiny bacterial lactic acid factories and other heat sensitive anti-microbial substances, it can no longer protect itself as well (11)(12).

To repeat: without the minerals and nutrients from a diet of fresh green grass that millions of years of evolution have coded for, the milk is just not made with the normal bevy of bactericidal ingredients designed by Nature to stifle unwanted microbial growth.

Know the source of your raw milk and demand that it be from grass-fed animals. Preferably organic.

I can't stress strongly enough that the health of the cows, how they're fed, (green grass or starchy grains), where they're confined (pasture or manure-laden pen) and how the milk is collected all contribute to the safety and nutrition of the finished product (13).

Dr. William Campbell Douglass, author of The Milk Book, explains in the video _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTfsMGSTvw8&feature=player_embedded

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_health_benefits.html said:
There's little mention in the mainstream media these days, of traditional foods having healing properties. Sure, there's a ton of hype touting unfermented soy products, vegetable oils and supplements as modern saviors, but in reality, these items have risk-to-benefit ratios like many drugs do (1).

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century (2)(3). That's right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of "stem cell" of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases (4). From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this "white blood" nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that (5)(6).

[...]Our bodies use amino acids as building blocks for protein. Depending on who you ask, we need 20-22 of them for this task. Eight of them are considered essential, in that we have to get them from our food. The remaining 12-14 we can make from the first eight in the chemical factories of our bodies.

Raw cow's milk has all 8 essential amino acids (8), saving our bodies the work of having to convert any into usable form. About 80% of the proteins in milk are caseins- reasonably heat stable but easy to digest. The remaining 20% or so fall into the class of whey proteins, many of which have important physiological effects (bioactivity) (9). Also easy to digest, but very heat-sensitive (10), these include key enzymes (11) (specialized proteins) and enzyme inhibitors, immunoglobulins (antibodies) (12), metal-binding proteins, vitamin binding proteins and several growth factors.

Current research is now focusing on fragments of protein (peptide segments) hidden in casein molecules that exhibit anti-microbial activity (13).

Lactoferrin (14), an iron-binding protein, has numerous beneficial properties including (as you might guess) improved absorption and assimilation of iron, anti-cancer properties and anti-microbial action against several species of bacteria responsible for dental cavities (15). Recent studies also reveal that it has powerful antiviral properties as well (16).

Two other players in raw milk's antibiotic protein/enzyme arsenal are lysozyme and lactoperoxidase (17). Lysozyme can actually break apart cell walls of certain undesirable bacteria, while lactoperoxidase teams up with other substances to help knock out unwanted microbes too.

The immunoglobulins, an extremely complex class of milk proteins also known as antibodies, provide resistance to many viruses, bacteria and bacterial toxins and may help reduce the severity of asthma symptoms (18). Studies have shown significant loss of these important disease fighters when milk is heated to normal processing temperatures (19).

Lactose, or milk sugar, is the primary carbohydrate in cow's milk. Made from one molecule each of the simple sugars glucose and galactose, it's known as a disaccharide. People with lactose intolerance for one reason or another (age, genetics, etc.), no longer make the enzyme lactase and so can't digest milk sugar (20). This leads to some unsavory symptoms, which, needless to say, the victims find rather unpleasant at best. Raw milk, with its lactose-digesting Lactobacilli bacteria intact, may allow people who traditionally have avoided milk to give it another try.

The end-result of lactose digestion is a substance called lactic acid (responsible for the sour taste in fermented dairy products). Besides having known inhibitory effects on harmful species of bacteria (21), lactic acid boosts the absorption of calcium, phosphorus and iron, and has been shown to make milk proteins more digestible by knocking them out of solution as fine curd particles (22)(23).

[...] Consider that, for thousands of years before the introduction of the hydrogenation process (pumping hydrogen gas through oils to make them solids) (27) and the use of canola oil (from genetically modified rapeseed) (28), corn, cottonseed, safflower and soy oils, dietary fats were somewhat more often saturated and frequently animal-based. (Prior to about 1850, animals in the U.S. were not so heavily fed corn or grain). Use of butter, lard, tallows, poultry fats, fish oils, tropical oils such as coconut and palm, and cold pressed olive oil were also higher than levels seen today. (29)(30)

Now consider that prior to 1900, very few people died from heart disease. The introduction of hydrogenated cottonseed oil in 1911 (as trans-fat laden Crisco) (31)(32) helped begin the move away from healthy animal fats, and toward the slow, downward trend in cardiovascular health from which millions continue to suffer today.

CLA, short for conjugated linoleic acid and abundant in milk from grass-fed cows, is a heavily studied, polyunsaturated Omega-6 fatty acid with promising health benefits (33).

Among CLA's many potential benefits: it raises metabolic rate, helps remove abdominal fat, boosts muscle growth, reduces resistance to insulin, strengthens the immune system and lowers food allergy reactions. As luck would have it, grass-fed raw milk has from 3-5 times the amount found in the milk from feed lot cows
(35)(36).

Volumes have been written about the two groups of vitamins, water and fat soluble, and their contribution to health. Whole raw milk has them all, and they're completely available for your body to use. (37) Whether regulating your metabolism or helping the biochemical reactions that free energy from the food you eat, they're all present and ready to go to work for you.

Just to repeat, nothing needs to be added to raw milk, especially that from grass-fed cows, to make it whole or better. No vitamins. No minerals. No enriching. It's a complete food.

Our bodies, each with a biochemistry as unique as our fingerprints (38), are incredibly complex, so discussions of minerals, or any nutrients for that matter, must deal with ranges rather than specific amounts. Raw milk contains a broad selection of completely available minerals ranging from the familiar calcium and phosphorus on down to trace elements, the function of some, as yet, still rather unclear.

A sampling of the health benefits of calcium, an important element abundant in raw milk includes: reduction in cancers, particularly of the colon: (39) higher bone mineral density in people of every age, lower risk of osteoporosis and fractures in older adults; lowered risk of kidney stones; formation of strong teeth and reduction of dental cavities, to name a few. (40)(41)(42)

An interesting feature of minerals as nutrients is the delicate balance they require with other minerals to function properly. For instance, calcium needs a proper ratio of two other macronutrients, phosphorus and magnesium, to be properly utilized by our bodies. Guess what? Nature codes for the entire array of minerals in raw milk (from cows on properly maintained pasture) to be in proper balance to one another (43) thus optimizing their benefit to us.

The 60 plus (known) fully intact and functional enzymes in raw milk (44)(45) have an amazing array of tasks to perform, each one of them essential in facilitating one key reaction or another. Some of them are native to milk, and others come from beneficial bacteria growing in the milk. Just keeping track of them would require a post-doctoral degree!

To me, the most significant health benefit derived from food enzymes is the burden they take off our body. When we eat a food that contains enzymes devoted to its own digestion, it's that much less work for our pancreas. (46) Given the choice, I'll bet that busy organ would rather occupy itself with making metabolic enzymes and insulin, letting food digest itself.

The amylase (47), bacterially-produced lactase, (48) lipases (49) and phosphatases (50) in raw milk, break down starch, lactose (milk sugar), fat (triglycerides) and phosphate compounds respectively, making milk more digestible and freeing up key minerals. Other enzymes, like catalase, (51) lysozyme (52) and lactoperoxidase (53) help to protect milk from unwanted bacterial infection, making it safer for us to drink.

Milk contains about 3mg of cholesterol per gram (54) - a decent amount. Our bodies make most of what we need, that amount fluctuating by what we get from our food. (55) Eat more, make less. Either way, we need it. Why not let raw milk be one source?

Cholesterol is a protective/repair substance. A waxy plant steroid (often lumped in with the fats), our body uses it as a form of water-proofing, and as a building block for a number of key hormones.

It's natural, normal and essential to find it in our brain, liver, nerves, blood, bile, indeed, every cell membrane. (56) The best analogy I've heard regarding cholesterol's supposed causative effects on the clogging of our arteries is that blaming it is like blaming crime on the police because they're always at the scene.

Through the process of fermentation, several strains of bacteria naturally present or added later (Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc and Pediococcus, to name a few) can transform milk into an even more digestible food. (57)

With high levels of lactic acid, numerous enzymes and increased vitamin content, 'soured' or fermented dairy products like yogurt and kefir (made with bacteria and yeast, actually) provide a plethora of health benefits for the savvy people who eat them. (58) Being acid lovers, these helpful little critters make it safely through the stomach's acid environment to reach the intestines where they really begin to work their magic (59).

Down there in the pitch black, some of them make enzymes that help break proteins apart- a real benefit for people with weakened digestion whether it be from age, pharmaceutical side-effects or illness. (60)

Other strains get to work on fats by making lipases that chop triglycerides into useable chunks. (61) Still others take on the milk sugar, lactose, and, using fancy sounding enzymes like beta-galactosidase, glycolase and lactic dehydrogenase (take notes, there'll be a quiz later!), make lactic acid out of it. (62)

[...] It boosts absorption of calcium, iron and phosphorus, breaks up casein into smaller chunks and helps eliminate bad bugs. Raw milk is a living food with remarkable self-protective properties, but here's the kick: most foods tend to go south as they age, raw milk just keeps getting better.

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/what_is_in_raw_milk.html said:
Lactose, the first carbohydrate most baby mammals ever taste, is actually made up of two simple sugars, glucose and galactose, making it a disaccharide. Cow's milk hovers at around 5% lactose (human milk averages a bit higher at just over 7% by comparison). It's got a fairly low glycemic index (doesn't boost insulin levels very quickly) and so is better tolerated by diabetics.

As some people age, their levels of lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose, drop significantly. When they consume heat treated dairy products with no remaining food enzyme activity, they lack sufficient lactase to break the milk sugar down, and suffer numerous unpleasant symptoms, notably gas and bloating. Not fun. But raw milk, with live, friendly lactobacilli, has its bacterially-produced lactase intact, so chances are good these folks may be able to tolerate it.

Another way to enjoy the benefits of dairy with almost none of the lactose, is to eat fermented products such as yogurt and kefir. The friendly microbes, during the fermentation process, have consumed pretty much all the lactose, turning it into the sour tasting lactic acid that's such a powerful antimicrobial agent.

Raw milk cheeses are another tasty way to enjoy dairy without the lactose. Again, most of the lactose is consumed in the fermentation process.

_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw-medicine.html said:
Milk, of course, is designed to promote growth- specifically, the building of baby mammals. Curiously, the process of repair often mimics growth, and that's undoubtedly how raw, grass-fed milk has earned its status as one of the world's most powerful healing foods.

Eminent Canadian physician, Sir William Osler (below, right 1849-1919) recommended it as a valuable aid in treating many serious diseases, often calling it 'white blood.' Today, an incredible array of milk-derived supplements are available for those seeking relief from disease or to improve their health in general.

Missing here in America, however, is one special substance, immune milk, that could revolutionize medicine and healthcare, but which, like raw milk, is largely suppressed.

All mother mammals want their offspring to thrive- that's one of the basic laws of survival, but how nature assists with this is nothing short of remarkable. Depending on the species, mom either passes on a little or a lot of her immune system to junior via the first milk she produces. But not just any milk. There's a special name for the rich, yellowish broth of proteins, immunoglobulins (antibodies), lactose, growth factors and anti-microbial agents that make up baby's earliest meals: colostrum.

In the 1920's, Italian pediatrician Luigi Spolverini (below, right 1873-1965) echoing what millions of farm families had known for hundreds of years, advocated colostrum for use in treating infants.[...]

Paraphrased from article, the health benefits of biologically active ingredients identified in bovine colostrum: molecules (also known as antibodies) used by the immune system to find and deactivate pathogens such as bacteria and viruses, stimulates growth and repair of the gastro-intestinal tract, biochemically regulates cellular growth, cellular division and cell type, fosters rapid tissue repair, powerful antioxidant that offers protection to cells from free radicals, specialized proteins that inhibit replication of viruses within cells throughout the body, molecules that help regulate the immune system, molecules that compete for binding sites on the intestinal epithelium and provide support to friendly probiotic bacteria, anti-inflammatory hormone that helps regulate immune system activity by stimulating the thymus gland, and immune system glycoprotein that binds free iron, which, in turn, inhibits bacterial growth.

[...]In cows, newborn calves import up to 90% of their immunity to pathogens and disease from the first 24 hours of suckling. Human newborns get the bulk of their mother's immunity transferred to them prior to birth (across the placenta) but still need that first colostrum to optimize their immune systems.

Fortunately for calves (and us), their mothers make a surplus of colostrum, roughly 6 gallons (22-24 liters) in the first 24 hours alone. After that, the concentration of antibodies and other factors tapers off quickly to the levels found in regular or 'mature' milk.

The immune factors in colostrum are highest in the first 12 hours, because calves are born with what are, essentially, 'leaky guts.' That is, their intestinal tract is porous to the large immunoglobulin molecules which are transferring their mother's immunity.

To get full protection, they need 2-3 gallons of the richest colostrum before their gut lining closes completely, around 24 hours of age. Incidentally, this property is what makes colostrum so useful in healing damage done to the intestinal lining caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDS.

So, can humans actually take (and benefit from) bovine colostrum? As mentioned above, generations of farmers know the answer to be a resounding 'Yes!' The plethora of ads hawking supplements that contain it, and the thousands of scientific studies backing up the seemingly miraculous claims, all appear to confirm that the magic it works in cows applies to humans, too. In truth,[...]serious science seems to back up a lot of the claims: colostrum can be powerful medicine.

What is it touted to do? A very incomplete list includes: helps to restore and reset the immune system, speeds healing of surgical wounds, burns, and skin injuries, alleviates asthma and other inflammatory diseases, boosts athletic performance and protects against numerous disease-causing pathogens.

It's important to understand that the bevy of beneficial ingredients in colostrum (and all foods, really) are designed to work in concert with one another. In other words, there is a synergistic relationship among all the substances which fosters the health of the organism that consumes them.

Individual components in overly processed colostrum, either damaged by pasteurization or deliberately separated out, can defeat this synergy and bypass natural systems of checks and balances, causing unwanted results. Stick with whole, unprocessed product wherever possible.

Also, what the animal eats and how it's treated can have a major impact on the quality (and safety) of the end product. Unless you have access to a dairy farm or your own cow, the only colostrum you're likely to encounter will be in processed and/or supplement form.

As if colostrum's healing powers weren't amazing enough, nature takes things one giant step further. It turns out, the cow's udder is, for want of a better comparison, an honest-to-gosh biochemical laboratory! Researchers discovered that injecting a pregnant cow's udder with pathogens or allergens caused the manufacture of antibodies to those substances which were then expressed in her colostrum, creating what's known as immune milk or hyperimmune bovine colostrum.

Savvy scientists eventually injected blood from a patient into a cow's teat and soon discovered antibodies to that patient's ailment in the resulting colostrum. This is powerful, made-to-order medicine! Pioneer virologist Albert Sabin (right 1906-1993) is said to have discovered anti-polio antibodies in cow's colostrum which eventually led to his oral polio vaccine. Perhaps he created them by taking advantage of the cow's remarkable udder.

Ultimately, the discovery that cows could manufacture customized antibodies was patented (see U.S. Patent #3,376,198 for a great description of the process- it's a fascinating read). Why affordable immune milk is unavailable in the United States today is one of life's great mysteries, the answer to which might lie with the FDA and, probably, the USDA.

As far as I can tell, the creation and use of immune milk in the United States is still illegal, at least for humans. In other countries, like China, for instance, millions enjoy its benefits. For agricultural use in America, however, the bovine-derived vaccine market is booming.

Think of it. We have the technology to make a customized injectable vaccine that is completely safe and free of side effects, that is so inexpensive to manufacture it could be available to all, that jump starts the immune system and protects against bacteria, viruses, protozoans, fungi and allergens, and that is backed up by numerous studies attesting to its safety and efficacy. One's heart must ache at the thought of all the unnecessary suffering caused by the suppression of this amazing substance.

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/about_cows.html said:
Speaking of which, depending on the moisture content of their food, cows can make an astounding amount of saliva every day. Although 15-20 gallons is probably closer to the norm and amazing enough, at the extreme, one study calculated up to 66 gallons/day! Nearly 280 liters!

Why so much slobber? A big reason is that plant-digesting microbes work best breaking down tough cell walls in a nearly neutral pH environment, 6.2-6.8, preferably (pH is a way of measuring acidity and alkalinity: 7 is neutral, less than 7 is acidic, greater than is alkaline).

The problem is, waste products from fermentation are acidic, so Nature, in its infinite wisdom, endowed cows with alkaline substances in their saliva (bicarbonate and phosphates)to give it a pH of about 8.2 and help maintain the favorable conditions in the rumen. Amazing!

This is a good place to point out that feeding cows too much grain can drop, or acidify, the pH of the rumen and so affect digestion and milk composition. How much starchy grain is too much? Probably whatever quantity it takes to drop the pH of the rumen below 6.0, when cellulose-digesting bacteria can no longer do their job.

From the Home page:
_http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/index.html said:
Want to know more about raw milk? I did, too, but found there was no central place to go for trustworthy information. It's amazing just how much controversy swirls around this simple, but oh, so complex food. The more I researched it, the more fascinated I became.

Some folks claim it's positively deadly. Others liken it to manna from heaven. The truth had to be out there somewhere, and it was, buried under thick layers of half-truths and deliberate misinformation.

I'd often meet intelligent people like yourself with an interest in feeding themselves and their families more healthily. Soon I'd find myself telling them about this remarkably healing food I'd been studying. "Raw milk? That'll kill you!" they'd say.

Well, I've been enjoying raw milk products from organic grass-fed cows for several years and I love them- especially the kefir I make at home. All the doomsaying and fear mongering just doesn't add up.

So that's where this site comes in. My goal with raw-milk-facts.com is to help dispel the myths that have sprung up around one of Nature's most perfect foods.

I promise to ferret out the science as far from corporate spin as possible to bring you the "raw truth."

[...]My body has been my laboratory over the years, but we're all unique biochemically, so please use what you learn here carefully- what works for one may not necessarily work for another. As a Nutrition Consultant, even with three decades of independent nutritional research and a degree in Biology, I'm not qualified to give out medical advice. Even though I quote highly credentialed medical and scientific professionals, please consider anything you read on raw-milk-facts.com to be information only.

Randolph Jonsson
Webmaster/ Nutrition Consultant
Marin County, California

Anart said:
I agree 100% here - I can't have it in any form. I've come to strongly think that humans should not ingest Cow's milk at all - at any age - for any reason. osit.

I think we all need to stop and think for a minute as to how completely brainwashed we may be regarding milk! If you actually read the information presented (did you two actually read it?), it's clear that it is not a harmful, deadly, or even fattening substance (Among CLA's many potential benefits: it raises metabolic rate, helps remove abdominal fat, boosts muscle growth, reduces resistance to insulin, strengthens the immune system and lowers food allergy reactions.) - in fact, just the opposite!

Laura said:
I just don't think that humans were designed to drink the milk of a creature that is supposed to grow to a thousand pounds in one year
Anart said:
I've come to strongly think that humans should not ingest Cow's milk at all - at any age - for any reason.

Are either of these opinions based on objective fact? Let me be clear, after almost a lifetime of drinking whole milk, and eventually switching to skim milk, I also had come to believe that millk was entirely meant for cows, not people! But that is exactly the message that has been firmly planted in our minds!!! And, as you can clearly derive from the above information, there is a gigantic difference between raw milk from grass fed cows and pasteurized/homogenized milk from grain fed cows. Also, please note the beautiful, straight, white teeth of the natives featured in the video. Contrast that with the proliferation of crooked teeth and the eventual break down of teeth as we age requiring replacement with dental crowns. Funny how fluoride isn't doing that great a job of keeping our teeth strong!

Just like the rest of our food supplies, our milk industry has been infiltrated and taken over by corporate interests with the resulting huge profits for them and bad health for us. Don't you think it's rather odd that the three most nutritional/beneficial substances on earth - raw milk, cannabis/hemp, laetrile - have been made illegal! Please don't let your personal dietary bias contribute to the suppression of the real, verifiable benefits of raw milk for human consumption.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom